Final.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I wasn't talking about World Cup performances - I was talking about how good sides were in general. Four years ago, Pakistan were most certainly declining, so I might stretch it to 6 or 7 (although I was hesistant to put a number like that in because I was only a casual follower of cricket until about 2002 or 2003.)

I may be wrong really, but I generally think teams are a significantly worse now than they were a few years back. I don't really think Sri Lanka have a side that should have resulted in a WC final appearance (don't get me wrong - their performances in the tournament most certainly made them worthy of it - I just don't think their team overall is THAT good) and when a team with a player pool as low as New Zealand and a team in the dire, dire form South Africa showed make the semi finals, I think we have problems. England, West Indies, India and Pakistan basically put up no competition whatsoever which is perhaps where my gripe lies. I'd love to see, for example, a team play as well as Sri Lanka did and finish fourth - having the final we saw as the semi-final. Whether that standard of cricket actually ever happened or I'm just looking to the immediate past with rose-coloured glasses is definitely up for debate - but in reality I think I'm just disappointed at what England, Pakistan and India offered up.

When did you start following cricket, out of curiosity?

There's no way in hell that anyone who watched the 96 World Cup can argue that the winning Sri Lankan team was better than this year's one. Its just not possible at all.

And the difference in bowling between this SL team and the 2003 India team is bigger than the gap in batting talent comparatively. Even taking into account how well India bowled for most of the 2003 campaign.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

2003 was a while ago, but from memory most of sides were probably worse then what the sides were in this tournment. Sri Lanka played worse then what they did in '99 but made the semis, they were far better in this World Cup.

That's such an excellent point. Sri Lanka were hopeless in the 2003 World Cup, yet made the semis and were not that far off making the finals, even with their poor batting performance.

Either of NZ, SL or SA could have made the final alongside Australia, whereas in 2003 as far as I'm concerned it was always going to be Australia vs. India. The rest never looked like even coming close.

[James]

test (page 100 not showing - fixed with this post)

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by andyc

Hahaha. Best post.

Have to agree with that!

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Scaly piscine

New Zealand are just a bunch of well drilled mediocre players, plus Bond. They're not poor, but they're not good either.

I think that is very unfair to the NZ squad really. First off, you seem to give the fact that they are well drilled a negative slant, which of course it isnt.

The talent in world cricket is pretty much the same amongst the top 8 (bar Australia) in ODIs at the moment, its how well a team is prepared physically, mentally and tactically which separates them. The fact that NZ are good at those things shouldnt go against them...especially given that they do actually have what I would consider very very good one day players

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Swervy

I think that is very unfair to the NZ squad really. First off, you seem to give the fact that they are well drilled a negative slant, which of course it isnt.

The talent in world cricket is pretty much the same amongst the top 8 (bar Australia) in ODIs at the moment, its how well a team is prepared physically, mentally and tactically which separates them. The fact that NZ are good at those things shouldnt go against them...especially given that they do actually have what I would consider very very good one day players

The conditions in this World Cup have been ideal for New Zealand and they've still been smashed by Sri Lanka (twice) and Australia. Just look at the records of New Zealand's batsmen, all their experienced batsmen average low 30s or worse and the bowlers all average 30+ except for Bond. None of their batsmen have any real class about them apart from Fleming occasionally, same with the bowling apart from Bond.

The definition of mediocre fits New Zealand exactly. Average players and distinctly lacking in class or quality.

Before any illiterates start I'll state now that mediocre can also or just refer to whether someone has some class or quality about them - Vaughan as a ODI batsman for example has some class or quality, but performs crap, so you could say he's not a mediocre player but his ODI record is mediocre (or rubbish more precisely).

[shehanwije]

Congrats - Australia deserved its win. They were the best team in the cup, and today, Gilly's innings was the difference.

The Lankan boys played well and can hold their heads high - we are proud of their achievements.

Gilly rode his luck well (lots of nicks, several dropped & near catches) to produce a display of power hitting that took the game away...the rest of the Aus bats were made to work hard.

The Lankans to their credit fought back in the last 10 overs to restrict Aus to under 300 after they were 204/1 with 10 overs to go....and then again got it to within striking distance at 105/1 in 16 overs when its momentum got disrupted,as drinks were forced due to the rain.

A fiasco of a final.

[JASON]

Originally Posted by Turbinator

He was scared the ball might hit him in the dark .

Agree

He (Murali) has some county contract lined up ...and probably did not want to get injured and miss out on some dosh there ..

[JASON]

All in all it was a dreadful 24 hours for Sri Lankans and particularly those in Colombo --what with the Tigers attacking the City and the power getting cut off - Everyone in Colombo missed being able to watch the Final due to the Power getting cut... Regardless of the result it would've been their opportunity to cherish this Team and that was deprived by some dreadful terrorist activity.

[Lostman]

Hadnt the tigers promised not to attack during the final as well? anyway what more can you expect form an organization that uses 13 year old kids to fight for them.

[Salamuddin]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

Were they really that great four years, that Indian side was nothing special. Sri Lanka and Kenya were the other teams to make the semi finals. If you were talking about 99 when the South African gave it a big push and Pakistan had a brillant bowling attack, you might have a point.

Credit where credit's due, That Indian side was actually pretty decent I thought.....they had beaten the West Indies 2-1 away, won the Natwest trophy and the CT going into the World Cup. And more importantly they had excellent team spirit and were a very united team under Wright and Ganguly, something they totaly lacked in 2007.
They totally bottled it in the final but I feel Ganguly totally lost the plot when he put the Aussies in. Although Their three pronged pace attack was in good nick, India's strength is their batting and I would have had first crack at the Aussie bowling attck.

[Salamuddin]

I would also like to add that I agree with veteran Indian commentator Harsha Bhogle who said that Australia's batting and fielding made their bowling look better than it really is.

Did any team put the Aussies under real pressure in the field this wc ?
Only South Africa in that first game when they had that big opening partnership and even then the Saffies were always under pressure because of the huge total they were chasing.
Australia's bowling looked quite bereft of Ideas when they were getting tonked about in that game and it's just disappointing that opposition teams didn't expose the weakenesses therein

[Johnners]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Yep - Australia have totally raised the bar in there performance here. They have found a brilliant formula to succeed in big tournaments, and have an almost perfectly balanced squad. Its getting hard to find enough superlatives to properly describe the level of consistently brilliant play they have achieved.

First, to applaud Sri Lanka. They showed admirable skill, determination and sportsmanship in first reaching the final, and then competing in it. They made much more of a game of the final than either the 99 or 03 versions, and it was deeply regretable that the weather intervened and marred their, to that point, fine performance. I was particularly impressed with Malinga - he looks to be a real prospect to be a genuinely good pace bowler and should hold his head high for the way he's performed this tournament. Jayasuriya batted with his customary verve and for a while looked like he would at least keep SL right in the match - a not inconsiderable feat given what Gilchrist had done. Sangakkara showed enormous class - first in the field when he immediately confirmed he had not taken a catch, and then with the bat. He had a somewhat dirty day behind the stumps, but batted with great intent and composure. And credit to Mahela Jayawardene for at least preserving some sanity in the debacle that ensued at the end of the match - he's confirmed through this tournament that he is a player and captain of substance, and a very good sport.

Australia were simply awesome. They played the best ODI cricket I've ever seen played this tournament and were just irresistable. It was a phenomenon that fed upon itself, as the Australian team's confidence grew with every match, and the belief and will of the opposition to resist and contend with them diminished. Much has been said about SL's decision to rest Vaas and Murali during the Super 8s. I think it was a mistake because the ONLY way anyone was going to stop Australia winning the final was to make a dent in that sense of confidence and show the other teams that they weren't invincible. Otherwise, teams defeated themselves in over-thinking and second-guessing and trying to play Australia's game, rather than their own. This was demonstrated most starkly by SA in the semi-final. It was a phenomonal team effort, with Hayden brilliant through most of the tournament and Ponting consistently successful in a form of brilliance that appeared almost matter-of-fact compared to Hayden's explosivenss. Clarke also appeared understated by comparison, but was in fact very very good as well. Gilchrist was solid without being great until the final, where he produced one of the alltime great ODI knocks and proved to be the difference on the day between the teams. With the ball, Bracken was economical and always dangerous early. Tait was a revelation. Hogg was fantastic, especially given his poor form leading into the tournament. Faced with these three, the opposition tried to target a supposedly old and worn McGrath and Watson. McGrath's greatness in this tournament was assisted by the lack of respect foolishly shown to him by some batsmen who should have known better, but he also used all the skill and guile he had accumulated in 15 years in the game at the top level to great effect. This tournament stands as a worthy epitaph to a great career. Watto rarely threatened to take many wickets, but was effective and economical enough as a fifth bowler, and did well to go for well under 5 an over given his still developing skill-set as a bowler, and the fact that he was the one link in the attack batsmen felt able to attack with confidence.

I thought Ponting captained brillantly through the tournament - I can't really remember him missing a trick. He's shown himself to have a great understanding of the rhythm of the shorter form of the game and has matured into a confident, relaxed leader of his men.

The loss of McGrath, and presumably in the next year or two Gilchrist, Hayden, and Hogg, will of course affect this. However Ponting will continue for quite a while yet, and is now, IMO emerged as a genuine contender for the best #3 in ODI history - and I think the world of Viv Richard's record in that capacity. Time will almost inevitably probably weary him and its unlikely he will be able to continue without his form coming back to that of the pack at some point, but it doesn't appear to be likely to happen anytime soon.

Symonds should be good for another few years, and in Clarke, Hussey, Lee, Bracken and Tait the Aussie team has a core that should be good to stick together for several more years and be better than any other team they are likely to encounter. Add to that the emergence, at last, of Watson as a player worthy of his place in the team and the balance he provides, and players in the wings like Hodge and Haddin, and it isn't foolish to think this team can stay on top for a long time to come.

There was a great article today on cricinfo referring to Gilchrist and McGrath's comments about the team spirit and sense of belief, and how that helps individual players to keep on producing their best. You can see in everything the team does the belief they have in each other and the dedication they have to the team cause - this is, as much as any physical attributes or level of talent, what separates them from the rest.

The other factor outside of the XI that makes this team so good is the medical support. Mark Nicholas mentioned this several times through the final, but Andrew Symonds was considered a slim chance to play any matches in the WC, and was thought unlikely to be fully fit at all. Instead, he took the field during the group stage, and played - apparently fully fit - every game after that. Shane Watson suffered a calf-strain that should probably have ended his tournament - he came back for the NZ game and again appeared fully-fit. The low rate of injury in the Australian team is phenomenal, especially when you consider the derision they have copped as a "Dad's Army" of old blokes at times. When you look at the inability of teams like NZ to consistently field their best XI, this success in keeping the best team on the park, and getting injured players right, has been a real key.

The question is what can the rest of world cricket do to match this, if anything? I honestly don't think waiting for a drop off in the Aussies is likely to be a path for success - and if I really knew how to do it, I could probably get a one of the half-dozen coaching jobs that are currently available.

Matt79, liked his post so much he posted it twice

Seriously though, gun post, and a gun analysis. *nominates for afridi*

[JASON]

I am posting this out of Curiosity rather than any thing Mischievous.....

But as Most Rugby followers will know, all the players have their boots, spikes , headgear examined and approved by Match officials before big games including World cup Finals etc...

Can anyone tell me if Bats of Teams are examined for their appropriateness (to material used etc or sizes) before World Cup finals ?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by nightprowler10

Just Pidge who announced it. Though I figure this would be the perfect time for Gilly to retire as well, on such a high note.

P.S: 100th post of the day for me.

Get a life